| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Paul" |
| Date: |
16 Jun 2004 08:00:00 PM |
| Object: |
Book Review: "MArgaret Sanger: An Autobiography" |
Margaret Sanger, a great woman
June 14, 2004 (Annie Folgerton)
Growing up the daughter of a practicing lay midwife in the middle of
the Hippie Era, I have seen the consequences of not planning ahead
before making babies. Margaret Sanger is a great historical figure for
everyone, female and male alike, and her memory has been unfairly
sullied by funamentalist ninnies and misogynists. I wholly support her
vision, with the proviso that because of the increase in average
lifespan because of modern medicine, none of us, even the fittest, can
breed indiscriminately, and it's even more critical that people with
genetic health issues as well as people whose families haven't fit
into society very well exercise the better part of valor and refrain
from reproducing.
.
|
|
| User: "Ron Nicholson" |
|
| Title: Re: Book Review: "MArgaret Sanger: An Autobiography" |
16 Jun 2004 08:25:26 PM |
|
|
In article <462bba80.0406161659.4202243c@posting.google.com>,
(Paul) wrote:
Margaret Sanger, a great woman
June 14, 2004 (Annie Folgerton)
Growing up the daughter of a practicing lay midwife in the middle of
the Hippie Era, I have seen the consequences of not planning ahead
before making babies. Margaret Sanger is a great historical figure for
everyone, female and male alike, and her memory has been unfairly
sullied by funamentalist ninnies and misogynists. I wholly support her
vision, with the proviso that because of the increase in average
lifespan because of modern medicine, none of us, even the fittest, can
breed indiscriminately, and it's even more critical that people with
genetic health issues as well as people whose families haven't fit
into society very well exercise the better part of valor and refrain
from reproducing.
The average person seems to employ their own eugenics program. Do you
look for a healthy mate, or an unhealthy mate in hope of producing
healthy, or unhealthy offspring.
It is curious why when two people plan for children and they know that
both have a genetic predisposition to life-threatening conditions that
they would choose to have offspring.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Clave" |
|
| Title: Re: Book Review: "MArgaret Sanger: An Autobiography" |
16 Jun 2004 08:30:34 PM |
|
|
"Ron Nicholson" <balie@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:balie-0EB0A5.21261116062004@nntp.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
In article <462bba80.0406161659.4202243c@posting.google.com>,
oatteaseffen@hotmail.com (Paul) wrote:
Margaret Sanger, a great woman
June 14, 2004 (Annie Folgerton)
Growing up the daughter of a practicing lay midwife in the middle of
the Hippie Era, I have seen the consequences of not planning ahead
before making babies. Margaret Sanger is a great historical figure for
everyone, female and male alike, and her memory has been unfairly
sullied by funamentalist ninnies and misogynists. I wholly support her
vision, with the proviso that because of the increase in average
lifespan because of modern medicine, none of us, even the fittest, can
breed indiscriminately, and it's even more critical that people with
genetic health issues as well as people whose families haven't fit
into society very well exercise the better part of valor and refrain
from reproducing.
The average person seems to employ their own eugenics program. Do you
look for a healthy mate, or an unhealthy mate in hope of producing
healthy, or unhealthy offspring.
It is curious why when two people plan for children and they know that
both have a genetic predisposition to life-threatening conditions that
they would choose to have offspring.
Some would argue that it's in our nature to both desire children and do stupid
things.
Jim
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Somesappywriter" |
|
| Title: Re: Book Review: "MArgaret Sanger: An Autobiography" |
17 Jun 2004 09:55:29 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 01:25:26 GMT, Ron Nicholson <balie@rogers.com>
wrote:
In article <462bba80.0406161659.4202243c@posting.google.com>,
oatteaseffen@hotmail.com (Paul) wrote:
Margaret Sanger, a great woman
June 14, 2004 (Annie Folgerton)
Growing up the daughter of a practicing lay midwife in the middle of
the Hippie Era, I have seen the consequences of not planning ahead
before making babies. Margaret Sanger is a great historical figure for
everyone, female and male alike, and her memory has been unfairly
sullied by funamentalist ninnies and misogynists. I wholly support her
vision, with the proviso that because of the increase in average
lifespan because of modern medicine, none of us, even the fittest, can
breed indiscriminately, and it's even more critical that people with
genetic health issues as well as people whose families haven't fit
into society very well exercise the better part of valor and refrain
from reproducing.
The average person seems to employ their own eugenics program. Do you
look for a healthy mate, or an unhealthy mate in hope of producing
healthy, or unhealthy offspring.
I knew my husband was diabetic before I married him. Our son is
healthy.
It is curious why when two people plan for children and they know that
both have a genetic predisposition to life-threatening conditions that
they would choose to have offspring.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Clave" |
|
| Title: Re: Book Review: "MArgaret Sanger: An Autobiography" |
17 Jun 2004 01:39:59 PM |
|
|
"Somesappywriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:q5c3d0ddgc6ihp6f21csp7r5gogodfk829@4ax.com...
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 01:25:26 GMT, Ron Nicholson <balie@rogers.com>
wrote:
In article <462bba80.0406161659.4202243c@posting.google.com>,
oatteaseffen@hotmail.com (Paul) wrote:
Margaret Sanger, a great woman
June 14, 2004 (Annie Folgerton)
Growing up the daughter of a practicing lay midwife in the middle of
the Hippie Era, I have seen the consequences of not planning ahead
before making babies. Margaret Sanger is a great historical figure for
everyone, female and male alike, and her memory has been unfairly
sullied by funamentalist ninnies and misogynists. I wholly support her
vision, with the proviso that because of the increase in average
lifespan because of modern medicine, none of us, even the fittest, can
breed indiscriminately, and it's even more critical that people with
genetic health issues as well as people whose families haven't fit
into society very well exercise the better part of valor and refrain
from reproducing.
The average person seems to employ their own eugenics program. Do you
look for a healthy mate, or an unhealthy mate in hope of producing
healthy, or unhealthy offspring.
I knew my husband was diabetic before I married him. Our son is
healthy.
Works the other way round as well. Healthy parents can have children who
develop diabetes.
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Somesappywriter" |
|
| Title: Re: Book Review: "MArgaret Sanger: An Autobiography" |
18 Jun 2004 07:45:51 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 11:39:59 -0700, "Clave"
<ClaviusFairAndBalanced@cablespeed.com> wrote:
"Somesappywriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:q5c3d0ddgc6ihp6f21csp7r5gogodfk829@4ax.com...
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 01:25:26 GMT, Ron Nicholson <balie@rogers.com>
wrote:
In article <462bba80.0406161659.4202243c@posting.google.com>,
oatteaseffen@hotmail.com (Paul) wrote:
Margaret Sanger, a great woman
June 14, 2004 (Annie Folgerton)
Growing up the daughter of a practicing lay midwife in the middle of
the Hippie Era, I have seen the consequences of not planning ahead
before making babies. Margaret Sanger is a great historical figure for
everyone, female and male alike, and her memory has been unfairly
sullied by funamentalist ninnies and misogynists. I wholly support her
vision, with the proviso that because of the increase in average
lifespan because of modern medicine, none of us, even the fittest, can
breed indiscriminately, and it's even more critical that people with
genetic health issues as well as people whose families haven't fit
into society very well exercise the better part of valor and refrain
from reproducing.
The average person seems to employ their own eugenics program. Do you
look for a healthy mate, or an unhealthy mate in hope of producing
healthy, or unhealthy offspring.
I knew my husband was diabetic before I married him. Our son is
healthy.
Works the other way round as well. Healthy parents can have children who
develop diabetes.
Indeed.
Jim
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Somesappywriter" |
|
| Title: Re: Book Review: "MArgaret Sanger: An Autobiography" |
18 Jun 2004 08:00:14 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 11:39:59 -0700, "Clave"
<ClaviusFairAndBalanced@cablespeed.com> wrote:
"Somesappywriter" <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:q5c3d0ddgc6ihp6f21csp7r5gogodfk829@4ax.com...
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 01:25:26 GMT, Ron Nicholson <balie@rogers.com>
wrote:
In article <462bba80.0406161659.4202243c@posting.google.com>,
oatteaseffen@hotmail.com (Paul) wrote:
Margaret Sanger, a great woman
June 14, 2004 (Annie Folgerton)
Growing up the daughter of a practicing lay midwife in the middle of
the Hippie Era, I have seen the consequences of not planning ahead
before making babies. Margaret Sanger is a great historical figure for
everyone, female and male alike, and her memory has been unfairly
sullied by funamentalist ninnies and misogynists. I wholly support her
vision, with the proviso that because of the increase in average
lifespan because of modern medicine, none of us, even the fittest, can
breed indiscriminately, and it's even more critical that people with
genetic health issues as well as people whose families haven't fit
into society very well exercise the better part of valor and refrain
from reproducing.
The average person seems to employ their own eugenics program. Do you
look for a healthy mate, or an unhealthy mate in hope of producing
healthy, or unhealthy offspring.
I knew my husband was diabetic before I married him. Our son is
healthy.
Works the other way round as well. Healthy parents can have children who
develop diabetes.
My husband had an adult onset of diabetes, as did his deceased mother.
None of my sisters-in-law or my brothers-in-law have developed
diabetes, and all are significantly older than him.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Nicholson" |
|
| Title: Re: Book Review: "MArgaret Sanger: An Autobiography" |
17 Jun 2004 10:58:29 AM |
|
|
In article <q5c3d0ddgc6ihp6f21csp7r5gogodfk829@4ax.com>,
Somesappywriter <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 01:25:26 GMT, Ron Nicholson <balie@rogers.com>
wrote:
In article <462bba80.0406161659.4202243c@posting.google.com>,
oatteaseffen@hotmail.com (Paul) wrote:
Margaret Sanger, a great woman
June 14, 2004 (Annie Folgerton)
Growing up the daughter of a practicing lay midwife in the middle of
the Hippie Era, I have seen the consequences of not planning ahead
before making babies. Margaret Sanger is a great historical figure for
everyone, female and male alike, and her memory has been unfairly
sullied by funamentalist ninnies and misogynists. I wholly support her
vision, with the proviso that because of the increase in average
lifespan because of modern medicine, none of us, even the fittest, can
breed indiscriminately, and it's even more critical that people with
genetic health issues as well as people whose families haven't fit
into society very well exercise the better part of valor and refrain
from reproducing.
The average person seems to employ their own eugenics program. Do you
look for a healthy mate, or an unhealthy mate in hope of producing
healthy, or unhealthy offspring.
I knew my husband was diabetic before I married him. Our son is
healthy.
And should the genetic link for diabetes be made clear medically and
your son develop diabetes then, what? You then will be in the position
of creating an individual who is sick, may die and will cost himself,
you, or society a great deal in resources for YOUR choice.
Granted, life does seem to be about taking calculated risks, but is
interesting to note the risks with OTHER people's well-being that people
will take.
Sorry for personalizing this disucssion, I've enjoyed your comments so
far. You offered personal information that does illustrate my point
though.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Somesappywriter" |
|
| Title: Re: Book Review: "MArgaret Sanger: An Autobiography" |
18 Jun 2004 07:53:42 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 15:58:29 GMT, Ron Nicholson <balie@rogers.com>
wrote:
In article <q5c3d0ddgc6ihp6f21csp7r5gogodfk829@4ax.com>,
Somesappywriter <sappywriter@poetic.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 01:25:26 GMT, Ron Nicholson <balie@rogers.com>
wrote:
In article <462bba80.0406161659.4202243c@posting.google.com>,
oatteaseffen@hotmail.com (Paul) wrote:
Margaret Sanger, a great woman
June 14, 2004 (Annie Folgerton)
Growing up the daughter of a practicing lay midwife in the middle of
the Hippie Era, I have seen the consequences of not planning ahead
before making babies. Margaret Sanger is a great historical figure for
everyone, female and male alike, and her memory has been unfairly
sullied by funamentalist ninnies and misogynists. I wholly support her
vision, with the proviso that because of the increase in average
lifespan because of modern medicine, none of us, even the fittest, can
breed indiscriminately, and it's even more critical that people with
genetic health issues as well as people whose families haven't fit
into society very well exercise the better part of valor and refrain
from reproducing.
The average person seems to employ their own eugenics program. Do you
look for a healthy mate, or an unhealthy mate in hope of producing
healthy, or unhealthy offspring.
I knew my husband was diabetic before I married him. Our son is
healthy.
And should the genetic link for diabetes be made clear medically and
your son develop diabetes then, what?
I honestly don't know. I would like to think I'd give my son "a
chance" like I probably would if he had Down's. If this society is so
caring about life, why aren't they willing to do what's best to
perserve it?
You then will be in the position
of creating an individual who is sick, may die and will cost himself,
you, or society a great deal in resources for YOUR choice.
Indeed. But money isn't everything - isn't
that what anti-choicers claim? Life is worth preserving, right?
Granted, life does seem to be about taking calculated risks, but is
interesting to note the risks with OTHER people's well-being that people
will take.
It happens everyday.
Sorry for personalizing this disucssion,
There's no need to apologise!
I've enjoyed your comments so
far.
Thanks.
You offered personal information that does illustrate my point
though.
I made the right choice, for that situation.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Book Review: "MArgaret Sanger: An Autobiography" |
17 Jun 2004 05:58:32 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 01:25:26 GMT, Ron Nicholson <balie@rogers.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<balie-0EB0A5.21261116062004@nntp.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
wrote:
In article <462bba80.0406161659.4202243c@posting.google.com>,
oatteaseffen@hotmail.com (Paul) wrote:
Margaret Sanger, a great woman
June 14, 2004 (Annie Folgerton)
Growing up the daughter of a practicing lay midwife in the middle of
the Hippie Era, I have seen the consequences of not planning ahead
before making babies. Margaret Sanger is a great historical figure for
everyone, female and male alike, and her memory has been unfairly
sullied by funamentalist ninnies and misogynists. I wholly support her
vision, with the proviso that because of the increase in average
lifespan because of modern medicine, none of us, even the fittest, can
breed indiscriminately, and it's even more critical that people with
genetic health issues as well as people whose families haven't fit
into society very well exercise the better part of valor and refrain
from reproducing.
The average person seems to employ their own eugenics program. Do you
look for a healthy mate, or an unhealthy mate in hope of producing
healthy, or unhealthy offspring.
It is curious why when two people plan for children and they know that
both have a genetic predisposition to life-threatening conditions that
they would choose to have offspring.
What is really interesting is to look at what sexual attractiveness
has been in various cultures at various times. For example, in some
cultures the fatter a woman was the more attractive she was because
her family was rich enough to afford enough food to be fat. In other
cultures a woman could not marry until she was pregnant or had
children because that demonstrated her ability to reproduce and no one
could afford a wife that could not reproduce and have children to
help grow and gather food and work within the family economic unit.
This all had the effect over time of eliminating those with
undesirable traits because such people;e simply could not breed.
Evolution at work.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Nicholson" |
|
| Title: Re: Book Review: "MArgaret Sanger: An Autobiography" |
17 Jun 2004 09:53:29 AM |
|
|
In article <i0u2d0he72fn9b8kl5o8346h28voofmj0l@4ax.com>,
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 01:25:26 GMT, Ron Nicholson <balie@rogers.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<balie-0EB0A5.21261116062004@nntp.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
wrote:
In article <462bba80.0406161659.4202243c@posting.google.com>,
oatteaseffen@hotmail.com (Paul) wrote:
Margaret Sanger, a great woman
June 14, 2004 (Annie Folgerton)
Growing up the daughter of a practicing lay midwife in the middle of
the Hippie Era, I have seen the consequences of not planning ahead
before making babies. Margaret Sanger is a great historical figure for
everyone, female and male alike, and her memory has been unfairly
sullied by funamentalist ninnies and misogynists. I wholly support her
vision, with the proviso that because of the increase in average
lifespan because of modern medicine, none of us, even the fittest, can
breed indiscriminately, and it's even more critical that people with
genetic health issues as well as people whose families haven't fit
into society very well exercise the better part of valor and refrain
from reproducing.
The average person seems to employ their own eugenics program. Do you
look for a healthy mate, or an unhealthy mate in hope of producing
healthy, or unhealthy offspring.
It is curious why when two people plan for children and they know that
both have a genetic predisposition to life-threatening conditions that
they would choose to have offspring.
What is really interesting is to look at what sexual attractiveness
has been in various cultures at various times. For example, in some
cultures the fatter a woman was the more attractive she was because
her family was rich enough to afford enough food to be fat. In other
cultures a woman could not marry until she was pregnant or had
children because that demonstrated her ability to reproduce and no one
could afford a wife that could not reproduce and have children to
help grow and gather food and work within the family economic unit.
This all had the effect over time of eliminating those with
undesirable traits because such people;e simply could not breed.
Evolution at work.
I agree. Although I'm curious that we would use the term evolution
versus eugenics. In the examples you cited, there is a clear intent on
the parties involved to create something 'better', 'superior' and so on.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Book Review: "MArgaret Sanger: An Autobiography" |
17 Jun 2004 10:28:07 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 14:53:29 GMT, Ron Nicholson <balie@rogers.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<balie-73909F.10534717062004@nntp.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
wrote:
This all had the effect over time of eliminating those with
undesirable traits because such people;e simply could not breed.
Evolution at work.
I agree. Although I'm curious that we would use the term evolution
versus eugenics. In the examples you cited, there is a clear intent on
the parties involved to create something 'better', 'superior' and so on.
To me eugenics would be to create a race with a particular
characteristic not connected to survival or species development but
determined according to some other standard such as racial purity,
color of hair or eyes, or something like that. Even breeding for
intelligence.
Deliberately setting up a breeding program such as Heinlein postulated
in which people were encouraged to marry and have offspring solely
based on length of life would be eugenics.
Evolution is a mindless playing of the odds with the more favorable
survival characteristics allowing individuals who have those
characteristics to survive long enough to pass them on while reducing
the chances of those who do not have those characteristics to do so.
Some situation, economic, social, or environmental, that increased the
probability of someone with a longer than normal life span reproducing
and passing this characteristic on by having more children over time
than someone without that longer life span would be evolution.
No all eugenics is bad, and evolution is a blind mechanism to insure
the survival of the greatest number, whatever it takes, which is not
necessarily good.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Nicholson" |
|
| Title: Re: Book Review: "MArgaret Sanger: An Autobiography" |
17 Jun 2004 11:08:02 AM |
|
|
In article <3hd3d0hu2pg9pg6v70gthgjbuks55qp5hc@4ax.com>,
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 14:53:29 GMT, Ron Nicholson <balie@rogers.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<balie-73909F.10534717062004@nntp.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
wrote:
This all had the effect over time of eliminating those with
undesirable traits because such people;e simply could not breed.
Evolution at work.
I agree. Although I'm curious that we would use the term evolution
versus eugenics. In the examples you cited, there is a clear intent on
the parties involved to create something 'better', 'superior' and so on.
To me eugenics would be to create a race with a particular
characteristic not connected to survival or species development but
determined according to some other standard such as racial purity,
color of hair or eyes, or something like that. Even breeding for
intelligence.
That definition is useful in that it does distance us from other
notorious historical figures.
Deliberately setting up a breeding program such as Heinlein postulated
in which people were encouraged to marry and have offspring solely
based on length of life would be eugenics.
The medical community seems to encourage people to test for Down's
Syndrome to attain longer life. This does seem to meet the criteria for
an organized effort for longevity.
Evolution is a mindless playing of the odds with the more favorable
survival characteristics allowing individuals who have those
characteristics to survive long enough to pass them on while reducing
the chances of those who do not have those characteristics to do so.
I've debated this in anthropology courses. As Shawn pointed out,
culturally we may see some of these traits as beneficial but that is
also our own biases at work.
What we hope to remove from the human genetic pool is often viewed as
defective rather than seeing is a potential for an evolutionary phase.
Kleinfelter's Syndrome (XXY chromosome) comes to mind. There could be a
huge advantage for individuals carrying biological traits of men and
women for survival.
Some situation, economic, social, or environmental, that increased the
probability of someone with a longer than normal life span reproducing
and passing this characteristic on by having more children over time
than someone without that longer life span would be evolution.
How do we know that our own eugencis attempst, for example, testing for
Down's Syndrome and avoiding pregnancy, aren't merely failed attempts
for the human genome to evolve into the next phase? By fearing
difference we may be ultimately ensuring own destruction as a species by
halting any evolution that, as you mention, is being driven by economic,
social or environmental forces.
No all eugenics is bad, and evolution is a blind mechanism to insure
the survival of the greatest number, whatever it takes, which is not
necessarily good.
I always argued evolution as an adaptive mechanism rather than a blind
one. Species that can adapt survive and those that cannot seem to
perish. The same phenomenon seems true of individuals.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Book Review: "MArgaret Sanger: An Autobiography" |
17 Jun 2004 02:46:21 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 16:08:02 GMT, Ron Nicholson <balie@rogers.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<balie-2807AF.12080617062004@nntp.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
wrote:
In article <3hd3d0hu2pg9pg6v70gthgjbuks55qp5hc@4ax.com>,
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 14:53:29 GMT, Ron Nicholson <balie@rogers.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<balie-73909F.10534717062004@nntp.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
wrote:
This all had the effect over time of eliminating those with
undesirable traits because such people;e simply could not breed.
Evolution at work.
I agree. Although I'm curious that we would use the term evolution
versus eugenics. In the examples you cited, there is a clear intent on
the parties involved to create something 'better', 'superior' and so on.
To me eugenics would be to create a race with a particular
characteristic not connected to survival or species development but
determined according to some other standard such as racial purity,
color of hair or eyes, or something like that. Even breeding for
intelligence.
That definition is useful in that it does distance us from other
notorious historical figures.
Notorious because of their goals and sometimes their methods but not
the procedure.
Deliberately setting up a breeding program such as Heinlein postulated
in which people were encouraged to marry and have offspring solely
based on length of life would be eugenics.
The medical community seems to encourage people to test for Down's
Syndrome to attain longer life. This does seem to meet the criteria for
an organized effort for longevity.
Current society has a lot of contra-survival trends, this being one of
them. In fact, the entire medical profession fits this role.
It would be interesting to see what happens to humans as a result
after a few hundred generations.
Evolution is a mindless playing of the odds with the more favorable
survival characteristics allowing individuals who have those
characteristics to survive long enough to pass them on while reducing
the chances of those who do not have those characteristics to do so.
I've debated this in anthropology courses. As Shawn pointed out,
culturally we may see some of these traits as beneficial but that is
also our own biases at work.
Biases run rampant through the entire subject. In fact, it is not
possible to even discuss it without some bias creepage no matter how
careful you are. It's part of the territory.
What we hope to remove from the human genetic pool is often viewed as
defective rather than seeing is a potential for an evolutionary phase.
Kleinfelter's Syndrome (XXY chromosome) comes to mind. There could be a
huge advantage for individuals carrying biological traits of men and
women for survival.
But no one knows for sure and evolution is blind hit or miss until the
biological sciences are fully understood.
Some situation, economic, social, or environmental, that increased the
probability of someone with a longer than normal life span reproducing
and passing this characteristic on by having more children over time
than someone without that longer life span would be evolution.
How do we know that our own eugencis attempst, for example, testing for
Down's Syndrome and avoiding pregnancy, aren't merely failed attempts
for the human genome to evolve into the next phase? By fearing
difference we may be ultimately ensuring own destruction as a species by
halting any evolution that, as you mention, is being driven by economic,
social or environmental forces.
At the current time the evolutionary forces operating are a lot
different from what they were a few thousand years ago. Society and
intelligence has it's own impact, neither good or bad but substantial.
No all eugenics is bad, and evolution is a blind mechanism to insure
the survival of the greatest number, whatever it takes, which is not
necessarily good.
I always argued evolution as an adaptive mechanism rather than a blind
one. Species that can adapt survive and those that cannot seem to
perish. The same phenomenon seems true of individuals.
To some extent, but nature seems to try new traits at random just to
see what works. If it does, it survives.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Nicholson" |
|
| Title: Re: Book Review: "MArgaret Sanger: An Autobiography" |
17 Jun 2004 10:25:06 PM |
|
|
In article <sps3d0hioabc6fcuqrqbm8fcgucdje34kn@4ax.com>,
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 16:08:02 GMT, Ron Nicholson <balie@rogers.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<balie-2807AF.12080617062004@nntp.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
wrote:
In article <3hd3d0hu2pg9pg6v70gthgjbuks55qp5hc@4ax.com>,
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 14:53:29 GMT, Ron Nicholson <balie@rogers.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<balie-73909F.10534717062004@nntp.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
wrote:
This all had the effect over time of eliminating those with
undesirable traits because such people;e simply could not breed.
Evolution at work.
I agree. Although I'm curious that we would use the term evolution
versus eugenics. In the examples you cited, there is a clear intent on
the parties involved to create something 'better', 'superior' and so on.
To me eugenics would be to create a race with a particular
characteristic not connected to survival or species development but
determined according to some other standard such as racial purity,
color of hair or eyes, or something like that. Even breeding for
intelligence.
That definition is useful in that it does distance us from other
notorious historical figures.
Notorious because of their goals and sometimes their methods but not
the procedure.
Deliberately setting up a breeding program such as Heinlein postulated
in which people were encouraged to marry and have offspring solely
based on length of life would be eugenics.
The medical community seems to encourage people to test for Down's
Syndrome to attain longer life. This does seem to meet the criteria for
an organized effort for longevity.
Current society has a lot of contra-survival trends, this being one of
them. In fact, the entire medical profession fits this role.
It would be interesting to see what happens to humans as a result
after a few hundred generations.
Evolution is a mindless playing of the odds with the more favorable
survival characteristics allowing individuals who have those
characteristics to survive long enough to pass them on while reducing
the chances of those who do not have those characteristics to do so.
I've debated this in anthropology courses. As Shawn pointed out,
culturally we may see some of these traits as beneficial but that is
also our own biases at work.
Biases run rampant through the entire subject. In fact, it is not
possible to even discuss it without some bias creepage no matter how
careful you are. It's part of the territory.
What we hope to remove from the human genetic pool is often viewed as
defective rather than seeing is a potential for an evolutionary phase.
Kleinfelter's Syndrome (XXY chromosome) comes to mind. There could be a
huge advantage for individuals carrying biological traits of men and
women for survival.
But no one knows for sure and evolution is blind hit or miss until the
biological sciences are fully understood.
Some situation, economic, social, or environmental, that increased the
probability of someone with a longer than normal life span reproducing
and passing this characteristic on by having more children over time
than someone without that longer life span would be evolution.
How do we know that our own eugencis attempst, for example, testing for
Down's Syndrome and avoiding pregnancy, aren't merely failed attempts
for the human genome to evolve into the next phase? By fearing
difference we may be ultimately ensuring own destruction as a species by
halting any evolution that, as you mention, is being driven by economic,
social or environmental forces.
At the current time the evolutionary forces operating are a lot
different from what they were a few thousand years ago. Society and
intelligence has it's own impact, neither good or bad but substantial.
No all eugenics is bad, and evolution is a blind mechanism to insure
the survival of the greatest number, whatever it takes, which is not
necessarily good.
I always argued evolution as an adaptive mechanism rather than a blind
one. Species that can adapt survive and those that cannot seem to
perish. The same phenomenon seems true of individuals.
To some extent, but nature seems to try new traits at random just to
see what works. If it does, it survives.
I tend to challenge traditional thinking on evolution, but thank you
for indulging me.
In a sense, I do agree that economics largely determines the need for
abortions services in most countries. The fear of death tends to drive
us further better health and longer life and a selection process for
reproduction.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Book Review: "MArgaret Sanger: An Autobiography" |
18 Jun 2004 07:37:07 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 03:25:06 GMT, Ron Nicholson <balie@rogers.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<balie-39F970.23260217062004@nntp.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
wrote:
To some extent, but nature seems to try new traits at random just to
see what works. If it does, it survives.
I tend to challenge traditional thinking on evolution, but thank you
for indulging me.
I always enjoy a factual discussion without insults or name calling.
In a sense, I do agree that economics largely determines the need for
abortions services in most countries. The fear of death tends to drive
us further better health and longer life and a selection process for
reproduction.
I don't see it as a fear of death so much as an effort to continue
life. Part of this is evolutionary since it is a species survival
characteristic but a large component is because man is a curious
animal and always wants to see what will happen next. Since death
will happen at some point there is no need to pursue it to prevent
it's escape - it can simply be deferred as long as possible to
investigate something else.
Abortion, like most other activities, always has an economic
component. This is unavoidable in any complex society that no longer
needs as many children as possible to either act as a cheap work force
for the family unit or must replace a huge population loss.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Nicholson" |
|
| Title: Re: Book Review: "MArgaret Sanger: An Autobiography" |
18 Jun 2004 10:35:23 AM |
|
|
In article <01o5d0hjh3ugbicd92rpscva0o41pcjhc9@4ax.com>,
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 03:25:06 GMT, Ron Nicholson <balie@rogers.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<balie-39F970.23260217062004@nntp.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>
wrote:
To some extent, but nature seems to try new traits at random just to
see what works. If it does, it survives.
I tend to challenge traditional thinking on evolution, but thank you
for indulging me.
I always enjoy a factual discussion without insults or name calling.
In a sense, I do agree that economics largely determines the need for
abortions services in most countries. The fear of death tends to drive
us further better health and longer life and a selection process for
reproduction.
I don't see it as a fear of death so much as an effort to continue
life. Part of this is evolutionary since it is a species survival
characteristic but a large component is because man is a curious
animal and always wants to see what will happen next.
My experience of people is quite the opposite. My experience has been
that people are resistant to change, fear the unknown and often prefer
stability and predictability. I find children to be quite curious but by
the time we reach adulthood, much of that has vanished for many.
In nature, most animals aren't able to prevent evolutionary change the
way that we can. As species begin to differentiate and some of those
differentiations fail, the process continues. For humans, we label those
changes as genetic defects and go about attempting to alter what maybe a
necessary change for our survival as a species.
Differentiation would likely happen only to a small degree of the
population. Similar to anthropological charts, the branching off process
is typically a small pool as the division from the origination species
to the new variant appears.
What I'm considering is, while I support choice, that perhaps I am also
inadvertently missing an evolutionary phase -- two examples that I
mentioned are Down's Syndrome and Kleinfelter's Syndrome.
We tend to view women who experience miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy as
abnormal rather than looking to how this might be beneficial, or as a
branching off point for an evolutionary phase. Given our limited life
spans of 70 years or so, it is difficult to imagine how many generations
for those variations to become viable and successful.
Since death
will happen at some point there is no need to pursue it to prevent
it's escape - it can simply be deferred as long as possible to
investigate something else.
Abortion, like most other activities, always has an economic
component. This is unavoidable in any complex society that no longer
needs as many children as possible to either act as a cheap work force
for the family unit or must replace a huge population loss.
As is our prochoice position. I have many thoughts around what it
represents to have millions of unwanted children and the impact on
individuals, communities and nations.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Graham" |
|
| Title: Re: Book Review: "MArgaret Sanger: An Autobiography" |
17 Jun 2004 02:59:52 AM |
|
|
Ron Nicholson wrote:
In article <462bba80.0406161659.4202243c@posting.google.com>,
oatteaseffen@hotmail.com (Paul) wrote:
Margaret Sanger, a great woman
June 14, 2004 (Annie Folgerton)
Growing up the daughter of a practicing lay midwife in the middle of
the Hippie Era, I have seen the consequences of not planning ahead
before making babies. Margaret Sanger is a great historical figure for
everyone, female and male alike, and her memory has been unfairly
sullied by funamentalist ninnies and misogynists. I wholly support her
vision, with the proviso that because of the increase in average
lifespan because of modern medicine, none of us, even the fittest, can
breed indiscriminately, and it's even more critical that people with
genetic health issues as well as people whose families haven't fit
into society very well exercise the better part of valor and refrain
from reproducing.
The average person seems to employ their own eugenics program. Do you
look for a healthy mate, or an unhealthy mate in hope of producing
healthy, or unhealthy offspring.
It is curious why when two people plan for children and they know that
both have a genetic predisposition to life-threatening conditions that
they would choose to have offspring.
We don't decide for other people, dipstick. That's why most normal
people have an aversion to Sanger's arrogant "race of thoroughbreds"
bullcrap. It's nutters like you who can't tell the difference between
that and human pairing off.
Jeez, how fucking stupid are you...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Nicholson" |
|
| Title: Re: Book Review: "MArgaret Sanger: An Autobiography" |
17 Jun 2004 09:34:50 AM |
|
|
In article <40D14F78.FC724803@rt.re>, Graham <fdsu@rt.re> wrote:
Ron Nicholson wrote:
In article <462bba80.0406161659.4202243c@posting.google.com>,
oatteaseffen@hotmail.com (Paul) wrote:
Margaret Sanger, a great woman
June 14, 2004 (Annie Folgerton)
Growing up the daughter of a practicing lay midwife in the middle of
the Hippie Era, I have seen the consequences of not planning ahead
before making babies. Margaret Sanger is a great historical figure for
everyone, female and male alike, and her memory has been unfairly
sullied by funamentalist ninnies and misogynists. I wholly support her
vision, with the proviso that because of the increase in average
lifespan because of modern medicine, none of us, even the fittest, can
breed indiscriminately, and it's even more critical that people with
genetic health issues as well as people whose families haven't fit
into society very well exercise the better part of valor and refrain
from reproducing.
The average person seems to employ their own eugenics program. Do you
look for a healthy mate, or an unhealthy mate in hope of producing
healthy, or unhealthy offspring.
It is curious why when two people plan for children and they know that
both have a genetic predisposition to life-threatening conditions that
they would choose to have offspring.
We don't decide for other people, dipstick. That's why most normal
people have an aversion to Sanger's arrogant "race of thoroughbreds"
bullcrap. It's nutters like you who can't tell the difference between
that and human pairing off.
Jeez, how fucking stupid are you...
Well, let's see.
How is pairing off, where to people seek out healthy people to produce
healthy offpsring, unlike Sanger's argument encouraging those who aren't
healthy to stop reproducing indiscriminantly?
Do psychicians, social workers, lawyers, service agencies, government
and what not encourage you to seek out an unhealthy mate to produce
unhealthy children?
Do states mandate testing for certain genetic ailments before granting
marriage licences?
Do physicians offer genetic testing prior to conceiving for couples who
might pass on genetic diseases to their offspring and then avoid
pregnancy?
Dipstick, indeed!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vanilla Gorilla Monkey Boy" |
|
| Title: Re: Book Review: "MArgaret Sanger: An Autobiography" |
17 Jun 2004 08:53:58 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 14:34:50 GMT, Ron Nicholson <balie@rogers.com>
wrote in alt.fan.art-bell in message
<balie-ED0D51.10351117062004@nntp.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>:
In article <40D14F78.FC724803@rt.re>, Graham <fdsu@rt.re> wrote:
Ron Nicholson wrote:
In article <462bba80.0406161659.4202243c@posting.google.com>,
oatteaseffen@hotmail.com (Paul) wrote:
Margaret Sanger, a great woman
June 14, 2004 (Annie Folgerton)
Growing up the daughter of a practicing lay midwife in the middle of
the Hippie Era, I have seen the consequences of not planning ahead
before making babies. Margaret Sanger is a great historical figure for
everyone, female and male alike, and her memory has been unfairly
sullied by funamentalist ninnies and misogynists. I wholly support her
vision, with the proviso that because of the increase in average
lifespan because of modern medicine, none of us, even the fittest, can
breed indiscriminately, and it's even more critical that people with
genetic health issues as well as people whose families haven't fit
into society very well exercise the better part of valor and refrain
from reproducing.
The average person seems to employ their own eugenics program. Do you
look for a healthy mate, or an unhealthy mate in hope of producing
healthy, or unhealthy offspring.
It is curious why when two people plan for children and they know that
both have a genetic predisposition to life-threatening conditions that
they would choose to have offspring.
We don't decide for other people, dipstick. That's why most normal
people have an aversion to Sanger's arrogant "race of thoroughbreds"
bullcrap. It's nutters like you who can't tell the difference between
that and human pairing off.
Jeez, how fucking stupid are you...
Well, let's see.
How is pairing off, where to people seek out healthy people to produce
healthy offpsring, unlike Sanger's argument encouraging those who aren't
healthy to stop reproducing indiscriminantly?
Do psychicians, social workers, lawyers, service agencies, government
and what not encourage you to seek out an unhealthy mate to produce
unhealthy children?
Do states mandate testing for certain genetic ailments before granting
marriage licences?
Do physicians offer genetic testing prior to conceiving for couples who
might pass on genetic diseases to their offspring and then avoid
pregnancy?
Dipstick, indeed!
All it takes is one drive through rush-hour traffic to see that we are
definitely NOT breeding for intelligence.
--
V.G.
Change pobox dot alaska to gci.
"I wanted a car I could run down pedestrians with. But one with a comfy ride, like a sofa on wheels." - Father Haskell
"No doubt about it, 9-11 was orchestrated by Lockheed." - *lexa 'connects the dots' (cg5t80pl73d7r1s8113tqd19qse0ji0nrq@4ax.com)
(This sig file contains not less than 80% recycled SPAM)
Sarcasm is my sword, Apathy is my shield.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
