Female. male or embryo rights? - by SubJeff
Stitch on 9/3/2006 at 23:08
Quote Posted by Scots_Taffer
Not my finest, I'm sure, but the over-populated world token is a bit weak, isn't it? I'm not living in an overpopulated part of the world... in fact, it's one of the most underpopulated. Surely there must be different considerations for different countries etc, I get it if you're talking about Africa or China, but in the US and UK and Australia, are we really
that overpopulated that we have to introduce mandatory measures?
Of course not.
I dislike the fact that a word as monochromatic as "selfish" is even being used to describe something as complicated as the decision to have a child (or an abortion, for that matter). It smacks of "LOL STRONG INTERNET STATEMENT."
Rug Burn Junky on 9/3/2006 at 23:09
Quote Posted by Stitch
it pretty much is a given that putting more people in an overpopulated world ain't selfless.
Speak for yourself, my friend.
Sacrificing my standard of living for 20 years just so the world can be improved by having another generation of my genes is definitely doing all y'all a favor.
Shadowcat on 9/3/2006 at 23:45
Quote Posted by Scots_Taffer
Bull-fucking-shit, pal. It's what our bodies are designed to do, how is it selfish to do what comes very naturally and requires self-sacrifice of so much?
Did you read the rest of my post? I referred to the self-sacrificing side of
raising a child in the sentence immediately preceding the one you quoted, so I'm not sure how you managed to quote what you did and still raise that argument. (I also covered the "design/natural" angle, for that matter.)
I do think that I clarified my usage of the word 'selfish' adequately (particularly in the last paragraph).
Dia on 10/3/2006 at 00:00
Quote Posted by Shadowcat
but I'll eat my hat if anyone has children for the stated grander purpose of continuing the human race).
Ahem; I, being the end result of 2000 years of perfect breeding, felt it was my duty to contribute to humanity's genepool.
Scots Taffer on 10/3/2006 at 00:19
Quote Posted by Shadowcat
By 'selfish' I mean that it is of no benefit (whatsoever) to the child (hence my original comment). I mean, they can't benefit -- you cannot improve the lot of something that does not exist. (Consider here also the phrase "gift of life" which clearly has no real applicability to
creating a life, but nevertheless is used in this context a great deal).
Yeah, your adequate clarification amounted to "it is selfish, so nyah" and the definition of selfish above makes no sense to me.
Quote Posted by Stitch
I dislike the fact that a word as monochromatic as "selfish" is even being used to describe something as complicated as the decision to have a child (or an abortion, for that matter). It smacks of "LOL STRONG INTERNET STATEMENT."
Yeah, me too. It's not what I would prefer to use but in the circumstances it's the word that's being tossed around and I can't be bothered to start a semantics discussion amid all this.
Nicker on 10/3/2006 at 00:37
Quote Posted by Scots_Taffer
Not my finest, I'm sure, but the over-populated world token is a bit weak, isn't it? I'm not living in an overpopulated part of the world... in fact, it's one of the most under populated. Surely there must be different considerations for different countries etc, I get it if you're talking about Africa or China, but in the US and UK and Australia, are we really
that overpopulated that we have to introduce mandatory measures?
Population stress is far less related to population density today than it was a century or more ago. Wealthy countries import benefits at the expense of poorer countries (e.g. luxury cash crops which replace subsistence farming) and export the hidden costs of their lifestyle (e.g. pollution, habitat destruction, hazardous materials disposal, substandard and dangerous goods dumping etc. etc.).
Living in a sparsely populated part of the world doesn't significantly reduce the overall environmental footprint we leave on the globe.
Shadowcat on 10/3/2006 at 01:06
> the definition of selfish above makes no sense to me.
Is it really that unclear?
Quote:
selfish a. deficient in consideration for others, concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure; (of motive, etc.) actuated by or appealing to self-interest.
(says my paper Oxford dictionary).
What I'm saying is, who does the decision to have a child benefit?
Does it benefit the child? No, absolutely not.
Does it benefit the human race? Sure (at least so far as helping the species to be 'successful' by propogating itself), but I have serious doubts that this is why anyone makes a decision to have children (RBJ and Dia aside :)
Does it benefit other people/creatures/things? It's possible, but they certainly have no ability to effect the event (nothing that strikes me as statistically relevant, at least).
Basically, it benefits the parents. For whatever reason(s) they want a child, and so having a child satisfies that desire. Does that desire originate from evolved biological instincts? Very likely. Would that mean that they therefore have zero responsibility for the action? Maybe for creatures with less cognitive ability than humans, but I do like to think that this is not the case where we are concerned.
Whether instinctive or not, the parents are benefiting (in some way, for at least some period of time) from their decision to have a child, while the child does not (cannot) benefit from it.
In these circumstances, while I realise it may be a slightly loaded term, and there evidentally is some danger of misinterpretation given the instinctive nature of procreation, the label "selfish" does not seem unreasonable.
Scots Taffer on 10/3/2006 at 01:15
Okay. So you made this comment about selfishness, which is relatively moot since it doesn't draw any wider conclusions, to justify your earlier comment of:
Quote:
no birth of anyone, ever, is "best for the baby".
which was a stupidly obvious point, unless you are speaking of the birth of an existing person in the womb in which case it very much
is to the benefit of the child (if you want to view the continuation of life as a "benefit").
Shadowcat on 10/3/2006 at 02:23
My comment that "Intentionally having children is a purely selfish act" was simply in support of the preceding sentence in that paragraph, which you have quoted. As I've gone to some pains to point out, it's more or less the same thing said in two different ways.
And no, I was not referring to an existing foetus.
And while it may be obvious, it seemed to warrant mention at the time. I wasn't actually expecting to argue the point.
Rug Burn Junky on 10/3/2006 at 03:04
Quote Posted by Shadowcat
a decision to have children (RBJ and Dia aside )
Just for the record, Dia and I aren't having any kids until she stops insisting that we name the kid Fabio.
