From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sun Jan 05 2003 - 22:09:00 MST
Eugene writes
> Yes, churches dwell upon the blight of people. It gives them more control
> over the flock. Being poor, ignorant and young helps. Which is where the
> Catholics had it "right" once again, when they try to keep the woman
> [barefoot] and pregnant, eternally setting children into the world,
> and why they idiotically insist against birth control in the poorest,
> starving countries.
Historically the case can be made against the Church much in
the manner you have made it. However, a number of modern
researchers (e.g. Julian Simon) no longer believe that
population growth is inversely related to prosperity. If
anything, I suspect a positive correlation, though compared
to other factors, it's pretty minor.
> Their position is logical in regards to the well-being of the superpersonal
> assembly 'Catholic Church', but it really sucks in regards to individual
> people.
>
> > hardliners maintain that if the choice is between a disabled person
> > and a non-disabled person being instantiated, then they prefer the
> > former. Personally, I disagree with them, but it may come down to who
> > should decide, and whether a disabled person should have the legal
> > right to conceive another disabled person. At moments like this I
> > tend to lose my temper and shout WHOSE BUSINESS IS IT ANYWAY?
>
> A physically disabled person, I presume. (Mentally severely disabled
> persons have guardians, which decide for them).
Well, yes! If the disabled person wishes to naturally have
children passing on his or her disability, or wishes to get
cloned, it's none of our business to meddle up to the point
of using force to prevent it!
> Given a known high risk I would say that's borderline criminally
> negligent in regards to the child.
Now you seem to have switched to the other side.
> It also incurs costs on the society, which in this case should be carried
> by the parents (e.g. via a disability insurance) since preventable.
>
> If the parents deliberately choose to reject an available procedure which
> would have resulted in a healthy child (let's say embryo screening for the
> usual chromosome aberration and a library of known genetic defects) I'd
> say this crosses the line. Whose business is it? The society's.
I can't believe that you've been a member of this list without
knowing how many people are going to wince at that usage.
Society!? Do you think things to be society's fault and
society's business?? Our civilization advances directly
in proportion to the degree that it is realized that the
focus must be on the individual, not the state or society.
You surely know how many crimes have been carried out in
"society's" name (though I am of course not personally
accusing you of endorsing those crimes, duh)? Concerns
about society invariably lead to centralization and
social planning, and it looks like it won't be for
decades yet that people get it through their heads
that they don't work.
So which is it? Do you think disabled persons with a
hereditary defect should be allowed to procreate?
To obtain clones (when it's perfected)?
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:35:50 MST