2
   

"Life begins at conception"

 
 
Bella Dea
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Jul, 2004 07:39 am
ebrown_p wrote:
Kristie,

What role for a woman is more important than bearing children?

The very survival of our species depends on it.

What did your great-grandmother do that was more important than to give birth to your grandmother? If it weren't for her accepting this role, you wouldn't even be here to have this conversation.

In the interest of fairness-- impregnating women is the most important role of a man.


Well yee ha! Yes, survival does depend on women baring children and I really thank my grandma for having my mom but there are just too many people in this world with children they can't take care of. In my opinion, any person with a heart would rather me choose to NOT have children than to have children that I can't take care of.

Back in the day, people had lots of kids because they needed them to work around the home/farm. And because the infant mortality rate was much higher. Now days, people do not need 10 kids.
0 Replies
 
limbodog
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Jul, 2004 08:31 am
I hear you can sell a white newborn for about $10,000.00 US.

Perhaps I should rethink that vasectomy and talk to my girlfriend about business.
0 Replies
 
Bella Dea
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Jul, 2004 08:54 am
limbodog, you are bad.

Perhaps a very savvy business man but bad none the less. :wink:
0 Replies
 
limbodog
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Jul, 2004 11:01 am
What? I'd give her a fair cut of the profits!

Sheesh!
0 Replies
 
Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Jul, 2004 11:04 am
Well I guess then ebrown that any women born with out the capability to produce children has no important reason for living since their most important role has been taken away from them. I have two lovely daughters and believe they are the most important reason for my life, but not every woman feels this way. If so the world would be even more overpopulated than it currently is, we each as human beings feel differently about raising and conceiving children. It does not mean that one is more important than another.

I agree with Kristie, I probably would smack anyone that would say to my face that women should be nothing more than baby factories.

And impregnating women for men is not even close to being as important as helping to raise the children. From the sounds of it, you would prefer women to be raped in order to bear children when they would obviously prefer to remain childless.

We may "need" as in a society to have babies in order for our species to survive, however, we have plenty of potential moms and dads that want to have babies without condemning those that would prefer not to have them. Your comparisons reduces are human species to be that of an animal.

I also like your use of "in the past" - exactly "in the past" it was necessary, it no longer is. "In the past" it was necessary for parents to have lots of kids to help work - now children have the luxury of attending school. Should we go back to the past and have our children work again?
0 Replies
 
Bella Dea
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Jul, 2004 11:48 am
limbodog, I think you should make it at LEAST 60-40; 60 for her 40 for you. I mean, your part of the process is all fun and games. Very Happy
0 Replies
 
limbodog
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Jul, 2004 12:08 pm
Fun and games? You know how much work goes into finding a buyer and securing their payments etc?

S'hard work!
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Jul, 2004 02:17 pm
Linkat wrote:
Well I guess then ebrown that any women born with out the capability to produce children has no important reason for living since their most important role has been taken away from them.


I never said any such thing. Saying "most important role" is not at all the same as "only important role".

Quote:

I agree with Kristie, I probably would smack anyone that would say to my face that women should be nothing more than baby factories.


I didn't say this either. I said that producing babies is very important-- even the most important thing (biologically speaking at least). I was careful to point out that both men and women had their respective roles in this process.

Quote:

And impregnating women for men is not even close to being as important as helping to raise the children. From the sounds of it, you would prefer women to be raped in order to bear children when they would obviously prefer to remain childless.


This is not factually true. If men (or the males of any species) stop impregnating women, the species will simply cease to exist. This is not true if the men stop helping to raise their young.

There are many species where the males have no part in childrearing, and there are human cultures where this was true. Both species and cultures can survive without men taking this role.

Quote:

We may "need" as in a society to have babies in order for our species to survive, however, we have plenty of potential moms and dads that want to have babies without condemning those that would prefer not to have them.


I agree with this. I never condemned anyone.

Quote:

Your comparisons reduces are human species to be that of an animal.


Sure. I think that's accurate

Quote:

I also like your use of "in the past" - exactly "in the past" it was necessary, it no longer is. "In the past" it was necessary for parents to have lots of kids to help work - now children have the luxury of attending school. Should we go back to the past and have our children work again?


I am not saying we sould go back to anything.

I am just pointing out that it is foolish to assume that modern American culture is based on any intrinsic truth. The roles of men and women have changed but the way we do things is based on our specific values and needs as a society.

But the biological and social needs to produce babies hasn't changed. Sure, we have too many of them (or we keep too many of them alive), but I think it is safe to say that having babies remains very important.
0 Replies
 
limbodog
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Jul, 2004 02:27 pm
I think calling making replicas 'most important' places undue value on reproduction.

'very important' sure. At least, if you care bout keeping the species around.

But most? Bah. I'd say we could afford to have 40% of all women stop reproducing for a century and be better off because of it.
0 Replies
 
Bella Dea
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Jul, 2004 02:37 pm
limbodog wrote:

But most? Bah. I'd say we could afford to have 40% of all women stop reproducing for a century and be better off because of it.


At least. There are so many people on this planet we can't even feed them all.
0 Replies
 
Bella Dea
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Jul, 2004 02:38 pm
limbodog wrote:
Fun and games? You know how much work goes into finding a buyer and securing their payments etc?

S'hard work!


Sure....but the makin' is what I was talking about. Laughing
0 Replies
 
Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jul, 2004 07:40 am
I agree ebrown that it is not the only important role. But how would it feel if you were told that the "most important role" of your life as a woman cannot possibly be fulfilled, simply because you were born without a uterus or some other defect that prevented you from giving birth. Wouldn't that make one feel as if their life was inadequate with little reason for living since they cannot fulfill their most important role?

Well isn't that precious ebrown so you promote impregnating women over taking care of children. Right there it proves to me you cannot be playing with a full deck. It is much better to have all these children (like in the US) where the father is absent and as a result we have lots of potential criminals on our hands, not to mention no financial support or emotional support. Some fatherless children are raised appropriately, but having a dad would help in most cases. Remember ebrown we are not just a species, but human beings. Species may be able to survive without a man helping to raise a child, but financially and socially children are much better off and society are better off.

From a recent Washington Times Article -
Statistics tell the tale: Violent crime, drug abuse, teen pregnancy and suicide are often associated with being raised without an involved father. Nearly two-thirds of adolescent murderers are from fatherless homes. Seventy percent of juveniles in state reform institutions and 60 percent of America's rapists grew up without fathers in their homes. http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20040619-104226-7324r.htm
0 Replies
 
dagmaraka
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jul, 2004 07:51 am
sheesh, where did ebrown 'promote' impregnating women over taking care of children? i haven't read such a thing. the fact that biologically that comes first, stands. and true, when a woman cannot bear children, oftentimes she feels awful and, inadequate, as you put it. why? because many women indeed still do feel that to produce a child or children completes the meaning of her life as a woman. i do. some of you don't.
all of that said, social and cultural conditions are still important and i didn't see ebrown neither deny that or even doubt that. argue away, but don't twist what is said and take it to an extreme, ad absurdum.
0 Replies
 
Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jul, 2004 12:17 pm
Dagmaraka - from my point of view - raising a child is more important than impregnating a woman. Obviously you need to have "made" the baby first before it can be raised, but I would prefer that a man plan on being around for a baby. If he is not going to be around, it is better that he never attempts to have one - where ebrown places more importance on the making of the child.

I also did not say that having babies is not very important - it is just not very important to each individual person.

There is a huge difference between survival and our current culture. We do not need such an extreme situation as ebrown describes to survive. We are overpopulated as it is - women and men do not need as their first priority in life to reproduce and thus should not be criticized or made to feel inadequate because they choose not to or because they are unable. In today's society, people should focus on raising our children rather than reproducing.
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jul, 2004 08:41 am
Mountains out of molehills. Ebrown made a comment from a biological perspective, as true of rats as it is of humans. Other folks responded from an ethical perspective -- which is a very, very different place, and often diametrically opposed to biology.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jul, 2004 03:38 pm
Patiodog, I agree. I sensed early on that ebrown was merely making a simple and obvious statement: that if women do not have babies the species comes to an end. Thus, it is one of their most important roles. I and others jumped on the "role" part of the statement, arguing that women are not totally obliged to never abort, that their bodies are not the property of the species. I do think that ebrown may want to answer this interpretation.
0 Replies
 
JustanObserver
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jul, 2004 07:43 pm
I'm with Proyas on this one.

For humans, "life" doesn't start until it can survive on its own. More specifically, until it can live outside the womb (with or without the help of the hospital). You just have to draw a line somewhere, and that makes the most sense.

I sure hope God doesn't view sperm as "life"... the last think I need is eternal damnation for mercilessly killing billions because I found my big brothers hustler stash when I was a kid. Shocked
0 Replies
 
Terry
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jul, 2004 02:06 pm
Kerry is wrong. "Life" begins long before conception, but 99% of eggs and virtually all of the billions of sperm produced are surplus. God/nature is wasteful of life: 2/3 of conceptions do not result in pregnancy and roughly 15% of pregnancies end in spontaneous miscarriage.

Biologically and ethically, no person exists until the brain develops to the point that consciousness might be possible, about 24 weeks after conception. Abortion prior to that time is no one's business other than the woman involved and her physician. The man who gifted her with sperm has no legal right to require her to gestate it unwillingly and no government or religious group has any jurisdiction over her body. Abortion after 24 weeks may be done for compelling reasons which must include the health and well-being, as well as the life of the woman.
0 Replies
 
Terry
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jul, 2004 02:06 pm
ebrown_p wrote:
Producing children the most important role of any female. Whithout that, any species will become extinct rather quickly.


It is necessary that some females reproduce, but it is certainly not our most important role as human beings. It is sad that there are still men who value us only for our bodies and consider our minds to be unnecessary appendages that must be stifled to produce compliant wives.

Women who value careers over motherhood have contributed much to society. Did Mother Teresa not have a far greater impact on the world than if she had married and had a slew of kids?

There are other species in which females have value other than as mothers: Childless female worker bees are vital to a hive where a single queen lays all the eggs. Alpha females in a wolf pack have pups each year, subordinates generally do not.
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jul, 2004 02:29 pm
Quote:
Did Mother Teresa not have a far greater impact on the world than if she had married and had a slew of kids?


Yes, she encouraged millions of other women to have a slew of kids. Great.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/21/2024 at 05:55:42