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: E who wrote (52499)	8/21/1999 2:38:00 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

OK, let's see. My little Webster's says, selfish means "having such regard for one's own interests and advantages that the welfare of others becomes of less concern that is considered just." So you're asking us whether we think it is unjust for the woman to refuse to reproduce due to personal distaste for the man. The example you pick is, of course, designed to be inflammatory, that he's black. Now, in the world as it is today, is it unjust for a woman to refuse to have sex with a man because of personal distaste? I assume your answer is no. So, really, it seems to me that your question is whether it is unjust for the woman to refuse to procreate for any reason of distaste, it could be because the man is ugly, or stupid, or smells bad, or whatever. And your thought is of future generations, that it's selfish to deny those future generations the right to life. But isn't that argument the same regardless of whether she's the last woman on earth or not? If she refuses to reproduce, she's denying life to her gene pool, even though others, demonstrably, are populating the earth with great alacrity. My problem is that I just don't care if the human race continues, if the woman doesn't want to have children. I've had my own two children, and I'm 46, and I don't want to have any more. If I were to reproduce, I'd have to quit taking my Arava, and I'd be in terrible pain and disability. So I've got a good reason not to reproduce if I were the last woman on earth. And I assume that this hypothetical woman's reasons are as important to her as mine are to me. And we, each of us, are endowed with the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So, if that's the way she feels, well, that's her prerogative. And I don't think it's unjust. The world will continue to be beautiful whether we're here or not, in fact, some of it will be more beautiful. And it's inevitable that the species will die out, they all do, eventually. No more trilobites, no more dinosaurs, no more passenger pigeons. Our time in the sun isn't infinite.

To: E who wrote (52499)	8/21/1999 4:33:00 PM
From: Michael M	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

E - all your comments thoughtful and interesting. I want to clarify one thing. The purpose of my original question not focused on defining a "justification" for rape (although I did suspect and hope that dilemma would draw out profoundly personal feelings and beliefs). My real purpose was to map part of the environmental divide present among thread contributors. I wanted to know if humans would be worthy of placement on everyone's endangered species list and what the allowable tax or sacrifice would be. I'm bowing out in favor of, "How's the weather," unless someone asks me a question or misstates some previous post of mine. BTW, there has been a HUGE sleeper issue lurking just beneath the surface of the discussion. Couple of posts seemed about to stumble on to it -- maybe another time. All the best