On Saturday, January 26, 2013 11:36:45 AM UTC-5, JohnM wrote: > > Craig, I read many of your posts, none was so pessimistic so far.
Ah, maybe I was being more sarcastic than the internet allows. I was intending to mock those ideas by quoting Scrooge, as I think that there is nothing further from the truth than the idea that character is completely independent from their circumstance - that people with no shoes can pull themselves up by their bootstraps or who have been born into a system of oppression can free themselves by belief in the free market or some such thing. Craig > To Roger's opinion: I don't know what may IMPROVE, (or even deteriorate?) > the gene-pool? I think it is irrelevant. Good/Bad??? > for whom? for what? > Here is a post I wrote to the media about an abortion-related topic: > ------------------------------- > > To: the Editor of "Opinion" > ----------------------- > On: 'Roe vs Wade' Anniversary > > Life (any) does not start at conception. Take a lifeless (dead?) sperm and > a lifeless egg - you can do whatever you want, no 'life' will start, only > if both partners are alive already. > Also: a human being is not started at conception, only the > process-kickoff, leading to the development of such (gestation). > Similarly futile is the point that a (human?) soul is provided at > conception: in cases of the usual test-tube process, the technician has no > authority to have a soul provided by God. > Especially not for all starting genoms of which the few lucky ones are > surviving. > > As an old natural scientist I also take exception to calling the fetus, - > still in the preparatory developmental stage of a new human being in the > womb - a baby: > a 'baby' indeed is a very young beginning of a human person, ready to > grow up. > A fetus is a 'parasite' in the body of the mother, feeding on her > metabolism and developing to become a human personality by the time when it > becomes a separate entity: breathing on its own and moving around, > applying its own metabolism and repair functions among other human treats. > > With women elevating in the societal appreciation closer and closer to > their male "owners", getting equal rights and positions, doing equal work > for society it is unconscionable to keep them as 'baby-producing machines' > without their free and undeniable consent/objection to undergo the > discomfort of a gestation, the pain of a birth and the changed lifestyle of > a mother (more involved than the male participant who still preserves the > right to regulate and rule). Roe vs Wade was the second step elevating the > USA into the company of the civilized 'western' world - the first was the > abolition of slavery. > > John M > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 7:09 PM, Roger Clough <rcl...@verizon.net<javascript:> > > wrote: > >> >> Abortion should eventually be self-limiting, >> because it improves the gene pool. >> >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com<javascript:> >> . >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> everything-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> >> > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
