Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (52292)	8/20/1999 1:14:00 PM
From: Jacques Chitte	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

To me the bottom line is the question of force. Rape is bad enough. Unwilling parenthood is a big step worse. It'd have to be multiple parenthood to give the species a fighting chance. While it's likely that if you had just one man and one woman, with time enmity would give way to simple loneliness. But let's answer E's question and posit that the woman just plain doesn't like the man ... he's a big creep. I imagine the choice is between propagating the species against her most elementary rights - and discarding those rights entirely to have a chance of future generations. It's one of those "set-up" questions. In that context, my earlier monosyllabic answer is my benchmark. ("No.") And let's think for a moment about those next generations. Would you want to be a child of a Really Bad Precedent? Original sin with some real teeth? FT would have the ultimate solution to this quandary - forget the impediment to breeding and just clone up a thousand genetically diverse people from the DNA in the bones of the dead ...