Let’s Give This A Shot
Okay, I ‘d appreciate it if you’d put comments for the last post onto this one, just to see if it’s working.
I think I did something again that screwed things up.
4 Responses to 'Let’s Give This A Shot'
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
this one works! Here is the comment I tried to post:
I can’t get the comments to work in One More Try.
This link gives more details about the abortion story.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/abortion-paper-led-to-death-threats-20120301-1u60a.html
And here is a link about euthansia.
http://www.smh.com.au/world/mobile-euthanasia-units-go-on-the-road-to-make-house-calls-20120302-1u7y3.html
I agree with Jane and Cheryl.
jd
2 Mar 12 at 8:11 pm
Of course, if a significant proportion of your society is endangered by a war or natural disaster, it makes sense to preserve children and a breeding population. However, that time for humans passed long ago, so long ago that the persistence of the meme “women & children first” should have faded.
Even the loss of a boat the size of the Titanic didn’t endanger population levels anywhere. Perhaps 50 million died in the 1918 flu pandemic, but no society was wiped out by it. No localized incident any more can truly invoke a “save the breeders” response from a logical standpoint.
I’ll tell you what worries me. The excess male population that is building up in China. Something like 20% of the current generation will not find wives, unless women start taking more than one husband. Or unless they decide that invading surrounding countries is a good idea, either to find women, or to kill off the excess. :/
As for the “post-birth” crap, that’s just disgusting. And I rarely make value judgments of that sort. Whether its done sincerely or sarcastically, it’s unworthy of human beings.
Lymaree
2 Mar 12 at 10:43 pm
I’m not at all sure if things connected to survival of the group die off all that easily after millenia during which they were useful, not that this is a particularly strong example in today’s society. I mean, sometimes survival of the self will overcome any consideration of survival of the women and children. Still, related concepts seem to go right back to the animal kingdom. In some species, when a new male moves into an area, the biological offspring of the former one are the first to go. Conversely, if you want to see a group persist, you (if female) must survive to raise the young and you (if male and if having successfully sired the young or impregnated the female) must see off any intruders who pose a danger, even if it means risking death.
It’s not a perfect theory, of course, because if the male dies trying, the offspring and possibly some of the females will die too, and whatever society a group of animals forms will be changed.
Cheryl
3 Mar 12 at 8:27 am
I keep hearing Lazarus Long’s comment that the basis of all morality is “the lifeboar principle of ‘women and children first'” and that endlesss (adult male) philosophers have stiven to find another. But the schools which employ “bioethicists” won’t have heard of Heinlein–or Kipling, or the Birkenhead.
Fortunately, societies which believe themselves to be a “cancer” or regard children as unnecessary trouble and expense tend to be self-correcting problems.
robert_piepenbrink
3 Mar 12 at 9:08 am