reply to post by Freenrgy2
I find it ironic that it is more o.k. to take the life of an unborn child while the simple task of preventing sperm from leaving a boy or man for
the purposes of fertilization (where nobody dies) is less o.k.
Most abortions take place when the unborn child isn't actually a living human being so in that sense no life is being taken.
I don't have a problem with abortions as long as they are used for the right reasons. I definately do not agree with sex-selective abortions or
anything similiar but I don't see the problem with a rape victim having one for example.
So, your 'right' to reproduce at will trumps the rights of an unborn child to live?
As I said above. Something that isn't a living human being doesn't have rights does it?
Where is it stated that this is our only purpose...to reproduce?
Well at the lowest level this is the only reason we exist, just like animals we are here to ensure each of our blood lines continue.
Surely mankind has evolved to the point where it is no longer necessary to exist only to reproduce to ensure survival of the species
Yes I agree with that, bear in mind I'm talking about the lowest reason why we exist.
Of course everyone has their own personal reasons for their existence and most of us have our own personal goals and things we would like to get out
of life but from natures point of view we are here to reproduce.
Wouldn't you agree that reproduction is now secondary to ensuring that those that are here have the highest quality of life? Wouldn't this be
better served by selective breeding?
No I wouldn't agree with that.
Don't get me wrong I'm all for ensuring people have the best quality of life they can and I encourage healthy eating, fitness training, avoiding
excessive alcohol intake, drugs etc
But nature shouldn't be messed with in my opinion. It's a sad fact of life that we are born, live, then usually get sick and die but thats just the
way it goes I'm afraid.
Look at this for an example:
Imagine you have a 47 year old man who has been diagnosed with a terminal illness such as heart disease and he is told that he only has a couple of
years to live.
According to your selective breeding theory this man would never have been born in the first place because the genetic defect causing his heart
condition was spotted before conception was allowed to take place.
All well and good, no man and no heart disease.
But what if every single year of that 47 year old mans life was filled with happiness? What if he had found love, achieved his life long dream of
sailing around the world and he had a beautiful wife?
You think thats fair to take that away from him?
Surely its better to have lived and then it end early than to never have lived at all???
As they say better to have loved and lost then to never have loved at all...
You said your idea would:
Reduce the population to a more sustainable level.
Nature already takes care of that with disease and illness. As I said above its a fact of life that people get ill but just because someone dies early
doesn't mean they haven't had a fulfilling life...